Well, you knew it had to happen later or sooner.
The MSM has toyed around with coming out and playing the Jeremiah Wright Card for awhile now. On the heels of Ferraro-Gate, you knew there would have to be something to restore balance. And here it is.
The cable news yappers, and talk radio folks are having a field day with this one, as expected.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright may have stepped down as pastor at Barack Obama's church in Chicago, but his sermons are still echoing through the presidential campaign -- some rather vile ones, as captured in a video that recently made its way to YouTube.Let's be real: any of us who grew up in a black church, especially a baptist church, knows preachers are prone to say some off the wall idd'ish every now and then. If you're not familiar with the cadence, the typical call and response, the hoopin' and hollerin', the hymns, etc. you could be thrown. Some of it's for show, but there's plenty of substance there too. Of course, you could get caught up on the sizzle and miss the steak if you not familiar with the routine.
As our friends at The Swamp reported a little while ago, Obama's campaign is trying to put some more distance between the senator and the preacher, but given the focus on race and gender this week, expect this to simmer for a while.
"It just came to me within the past few weeks, ya'll, why so many folk are hating on Barack Obama," Wright said in the video of a Christmas sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ. "He doesn’t fit the model. He ain't white. He ain't rich and he ain't privileged. Hillary (Clinton) fits the mold."
This from CNN, attributed to an Obama campaign spokesman: "Sen. Obama has said before that he profoundly disagrees with some of the statements and positions of Rev. Wright … Sen. Obama deplores divisive statements, whether they come from his supporters, the supporters of his opponent, talk radio or anywhere else."
So I guess that why even though I agree with about 90% of what Reverend Wright is saying here, I definitely could see why white America (specifically the media) is caught up on this one. Never mind the fact that the sermon (which is being soundbitten completely out of context) is essentially aimed at black folks who are questioning Obama's ability to lead the nation due to his skin color, not a racist rant at whites. Also, cluelessly overlook the fact that this sermon was recorded around Christmas, days before votes were even cast in Iowa. Never mind the fact that other than the loose relationship of "spiritual advisor", Wright isn't even officially associated with Obama's campaign.
Nope, all the matters is here's an angry black man talking loud and greasy about elite, rich white guys in general, whom, let's agree, America as a whole doesn't care too much for anyway. That's what will be taken and carried, and hey, this being a game and all, I suppose it's fair.
The thing that really pisses me off, however, is the implication that since Wright's said some pretty gangster idd'ish at various points in the past, this means Obama by proxy just has to believe everything his pastor espouses, because, well, he does go to the same church.
Bullcrap.
Wright is a preacher. His congregation doesn't absorb each and every one of his views by simple osmosis. My pastor frequently says things I don't completely agree with, but guess what? That's fine! I agree with him on the things that matter most, and my relationship with God isn't dependent on whatever my pastor might say on a given week. I would suspect that most churchgoers, black or white, feel the same.
Painting Barry with the "he goes to the church, he must believe all this" brush discounts his ability to think, reason, and draw his own conclusions about things. It's wrong when people use the words of a few evangelical preachers (John Hagee, stand up!) to project similar views of their millions of parishioners. And it's wrong here.
None of this matters of course. The media wanted something to nail Obama with, since they're of course so conscious about being "fair to both sides" nowadays. And this package, wrapped 3 months ago, was ready to be opened at any time. I suppose you could call it a mere coincidence that it just happens to surface now, just as Obama's regaining momentum, and Clinton is reeling from that Ferraro BS. Barry's opponents (on both sides) have been searching for that special item to give Hillary the edge going into blue collar Pennsylvania.
I hope you enjoy the gift.
Question: What did you think of Reverend Wright's sermon? Do you think it's fair to play "guilt by association" with someone's preacher?
Barack Obama's pastor's words echo through campaign [LA Times]
Average Email
Average FAQ
Average Bio
AB @ AOL BlackVoices
AB @ NPR
AB @ WashingtonPost
Posts
35 AverageComments™:
If this is as bad as it gets, there's still hope for Senator Obama. I don't think this will linger too long, but there's plenty of time to find something else that can taint Obama. Ai least this doesn't go back to his adolescent years.
I would expect any man who intends to lead this country, when told by a preacher that people should be singing "God Damn America", to get up and walk out. Where you or I might be able to get away with sitting in a pew while the preacher shouts some racist divisive rhetoric and thinking to ourselves "I don't buy into this crap", I think it's fair to expect that a President would take more, shall we say, affirmative action in the matter.
Where is Obama the man? The hope for change, the break from the old rhetoric, the Speaker, the Orator? Sitting in a pew and thinking something to himself?
So much for the American path to a post-racist future. I'm disappointed, and I wish Obama would be a lot more forceful in his denounciations, but I'm starting to wonder if he doesn't really want to because some part of him believes Wright's message... all of it.
Somebody please prove me wrong.
@ spool
"I would expect any man who intends to lead this country, when told by a preacher that people should be singing "God Damn America", to get up and walk out."
Have you actually heard this sermon in context? Do you have ANY idea what he was talking about when he said that?
Don't go YouTube it. Tell me exactly what the context was.
"So much for the American path to a post-racist future."
That's a pipedream if I ever heard of one. The things this election have show us about America just reinforce that notion as nothing more than fantasy.
This is a perfect case of scraping the bottom of the barrell on the part of the Clinton camp - as usual. If Obama HAD to defend Wright's statements themselves I'm sure that he could, because I agree with about 90% of what he said too. If this country isn't run by rich white people then why has every president we've had to date a rich white person? This is just all so pathetic, really, taking something someone ELSE said and holding it over Obama's head, and they expect this to become a scandal while governors are buying 4,000 hoez? Enough.
All I can work from is the video, but I'll take any context I can get...
In the case of the video you linked to: I think, that the effort to define Jesus as a black man oppressed by rich Europeans is ignorant at best, and intentionally divisive at worst. I'd prefer not to have a President who looks for spirituality from a guy who thinks exploiting class differences is a way for people to better understand God.
http://www.trumpetmag.com/pdf/nov_dec_feature.pdf
Here's the Rev. Wright on Farrakhan: "His integrity and honesty have secured him a
place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics."
He's also said that the country is under the thumb of the KKK and that the US is to blame for 9/11, in part because of the bombing of Hiroshima.
At what point does someone who wants to hold the Presidency say enough is enough?
AVB: I'd like to add a small clarification to your last comment: it's the things the election have shown us about the Democratic Party in America that reinforce the notion. We've yet to see what Republicans will do or say, and that's fully half the country.
Here's the Church's "Black Value System":
http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf
Most of it is pretty sensible, and though I don't really agree with the concept of defining a "Black worth ethic" as seperate from a general work ethic with no racial overtones, I can see where the Church is trying to be relevant to its congregation and within the context of their membership this would seem more community-oriented and less racially divisive. What I totally don't get is the "Disavowal of Midleclassness" and the text under it which seems to suggest that the black community is a captive population under the control of somebody (rich whites I assume, based on his other sermon) and that this community is living in concentration camps, or something, and that they need to break free this power relationship in order to succeed rather than just feeding the machinery of oppression. Or something.
Huh?
You'll have to use the Wayback Machine to see Trinity United's promotion of the "Black Value System"... it's been recently deleted from their site.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061214152202/www.tucc.org/about.htm
Damnit, bad links:
Black Value System
Trinity Church, via the Wayback Machine
And finally, before I stop spamming the comments section here:
Thembi:
Ulysses Grant was the son of a tanner and died bankrupt.
Lincoln was dirt poor and worked himself through law school.
Harry Truman never owned or lived in a house of any kind before the White House, he ran a haberdashery that failed as a business.
Clinton was also dirt-poor growing up, and has made most of his money from speaking fees since he was first elected, and from dodgy land deals of course. ;)
Many of our Presidents have been surprisingly rich, but several have not been, and a couple have been in serious financial trouble before and even during their tenures. To argue that "every President has been a rich white man" is just demagoguery and race/class warfare.
If you listen to this entire clip, Dr. Wright still returns to the fundamental Christian ethic of Love and he points out that the charge of Christians is to "Love Your Enemies."
BTW If you take the time to read the old testament prophets in the bible, they said the same sorts of things about the leadership of Israel and Judah. e.g. who was getting screwed by who. McCains religious guys will never point that out to their congregations.
I'm somewhat torn on this one...but I'll admit there is some truth to what he is saying. The thing is, if you're not a black person in America--you probably can't relate to what he is saying.
White folk don't see their "white privilege". That's Gerry Ferraro's problem--being white in America is a very different experience from being black in America, and being a white woman in America is totally different experience than being a black woman in America... The point is--we all have a tendency to look at things from the perspective that we are familiar with, or can relate to. (Reference Cindy Mccain's "I've always been proud of my country" comment)
Anywho, I think ignorance and disregard of each other's culture and experiences is the reason feathers are being ruffled about these comments.(and politricks as usual, of course)
I may not agree with everything he said, but I do understand the point he was trying to make.
All I have is the context I've been given. The Rev. Wright is no Fulton Sheen or MLK. I see a demagogue inspiring, even exulting in anger. I don't see love, contemplation, or joy.
I grant that it may be righteous anger. But righteous anger can be a dangerous thing, and he seems a man that loves playing with fire.
I'd welcome more context that would change my mind.
@spool32
I hate to bust your bubble, but regrdless of how they grew up, none of those presidents were poor when they BECAME president (they damn sure were white, though, as much as I believe in those Lincoln rumors). Considering how the average person lives, being a lawyer or spending a term or two as governor or as a senator makes you rich in the grand scheme of this country. No one is walking into the White House - no one who would be TRADITIONALLY PREPARED for the White House, anyway - without a dime to their names, or even an income below average, or no education, connections, or resources. We all know about Clintons life growing up in Arkansas but he became president AFTER being governor - do you think he was making minimum wage on that job? Do you think he went to Brown and Yale and didnt rub elbows with the people he needed to rub elbows with to secure his political future?
I know youd like to turn that comment into a purely class issue, but the bottom line is that becoming President is not free and never has been. You can't do it broke, even if people give you money. And don't be naive enough to think that all of those resources arent ultimately controlled by someone (or someones)rich (not to mention white).
By the way, Ulysses Grant went bankrupt because he invested his entire net wealth (which was quite large) into a company, got ripped off, and died. I remember from AP History that his sad luck (rich white man gone broke) story is the reason why presidents get pensions today.
News Flash: You can't be successful without succeeding! Our Presidential history is full of people who never had to suffer poverty, but it's also full of stories of people who rose up out of adversity to achieve over the expectations of everyone.
It's not classist to point this fact out... but it is classist to pretend it means something, especially something related to race or class privilege in America. There are a lot of targets and examples of class and race privilege in this country, but the economic status of our Presidents isn't one of them.
It makes for great rage from the pulpit, though... not to mention providing an excellent scapegoat for failure.
It's one of the reasons I think Obama gets support... as a means to prove that you can be black and politically successful in America. We've had mayors, Representatives, Senators, Governors, Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Supreme Court Justice... but President is a powerful symbol. I'm not sure if I'll vote for him - especially not if he really believes some of this crap his pastor is shouting - but I think he's far better suited than Hillary to have a go at winning the top job.
Finally: Your argument that all that money must come from somewhere, and that the money people are the real people in power and not the President, is (besides being vaguely anti-semitic) an excellent argument against electing anyone who's not already stinking rich.
Bill Gates for President! Maybe he can run against Oprah?
AB, check out "Rick Ross talks Politics" post on Bossip from March 1oth. Another why you should never ask a rapper about politics entry...
This is simple. Most white folks don't want to hear the truth. America is as racist as it ever has been, on both sides, and with good reason.
You can put all of the Febreeze on a pile of sh*t you want, but it's still a pile of sh*t. I won't believe that America is willing to change until there is a black man running the country...until America the whore is willing to sniff at the crotch of a black president.
Thank you, drive through.
@spool32:
"Our Presidential history is full of people who never had to suffer poverty, but it's also full of stories of people who rose up out of adversity to achieve over the expectations of everyone."
And a half dozen of them were black, right?
The thing is that Jeremiah Wright is a well-beloved and revered preacher in the Black tradition. He is also a son of Philadelphia beloved by Black and White Philadelphians.
The other thing is that it is impossible to understand Wright's style apart from a familiarity with the biblical prophetic tradition and the tradition of the jeremiad in American preaching. Hyperbole is as much the stuff of preaching as it is the stuff of comedy.
@spool32:
"I would expect any man who intends to lead this country, when told by a preacher that people should be singing "God Damn America", to get up and walk out."
and:
"I'm starting to wonder if he doesn't really want to because some part of him believes Wright's message... all of it."
You speculate too much, which leads me to speculate that it wouldn't have taken much for you to bail.
"Somebody please prove me wrong."
You dug the hole. Get yourself out...the way you got in.
I'm very comfortable saying that I would have bailed out of that church, yeah. In fact, that's the whole point. Anyone who disagrees with Wright, and also thinks that Wright believes what he says, should be ashamed to stay in the pew what these rants are being dumped on them.
Unless you mean bailing out of the Obama camp, to which I can only respond: I'm in the not-Hillary camp right now, and that's as far as I've gone.
@leslie: That defense is often use to excuse the calls by prominent Islamic mullahs for the destruction of Israel and the oppression of women. I don't find it compelling when it's applied to them, or to pastors in the Evangelical Right who peddle the very offensive "God hates fags" crap and go on about AIDS being the scourge of the Lord, and I don't find it compelling in this case either.
I prefer to assume that people mean what they say, lacking evidence to the contrary. If somebody has a link to an interview with Wright where he explains that it's just hyperbole and style, and that his true message is something different, I'd be really happy to read it, call bullshit on all this media attention, and let the whole thing drop.
Nothing like that is forthcoming either from Wright, Trinity, or Obama.
@spool32
"Finally: Your argument that all that money must come from somewhere, and that the money people are the real people in power and not the President, is (besides being vaguely anti-semitic) an excellent argument against electing anyone who's not already stinking rich."
You are very, very off base and it really irritates me when someone misquotes someone in a comment and the comment is RIGHT THERE. Nowhere did I say that the President SHOULD be rich OR that he doesnt run the country (although, anyone familiar with our system knows that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are designed to each have equal power). What I said was, and Ill use different words this time I guess, is that there is a connection between money and power - I think its a pretty elementary concept. I dont think that all of our fates rest on the whims of some rich and white conspiracy. However, as much as we may have equal opportunity now, which itself is debatable, that cannot be said for the history of this country and the way we operate. What better evidence than our C-student president who bought and legacied his way from elite prep school, to the ivy league, thru some DUIs, and to the presidency? And for the record, I'm not sure what anti-semitism has to do with anything, for one because I believe that its blue-blood old money that runs things anyway. The only thing vaguely antisemtic about the connection between money and power is that it is clearly outlined in the Christian Bible.
Furthermore, do you realize that Obama is worth over $2 million? He is upper-upper class in this country. I trust him and his intentions, but you cant ignore that having money (and therefore interests to protect) influences your policy decisions. And if you enter office without any financial interests someone will surely create some for you to guide you to the policy decisions theyre wiling to pay for.
And another thing: When I hear "God Damn America" I think of the concept that while our country and all that stands for rests on the concept of God's blessing, it is our country's standard policy to commit acts that are directly contrary to the teachings of God, such as terrorism. I think that possibility of meaning is obvious enough that grabbing a soundbyte and using it to condemn the speaker is irresponsible and uninformed.
Mullahs, Evangelicals, and even secularists are entitled to decry what they see as injustice in this nation. Many on the Left acknowledged that American foreign policy contributed to the hatred that prompted the 9/11 attacks. While I think he went way too far with "God Damn America", the point that Rev. Wright made was that America cannot have it both ways. We (and I think it is important to remember that Wright used the word "we" and criticized the nation from within as a citizen) cannot sow violence and reap peace. We cannot kill civilians and call it "collateral damage" and then cry foul when others use the same logic against us. Right is right all over the world.
And I repeat hyperbole is the stuff of preaching.
I am a 71 year old Black Pastor, and I am not ashamed to admit, that Pastor Wright's sermon is preached in many, if not most, Black Baptist churches any given Sunday morning.
While I do understand that Senator Obama had to denounce his Pastor's sermon, I don't and I wont. I do not expect people who are neither Black nor brown, to understand how we of colol feel, after all, you can never see into our souls. We have been taught to fear, or be cautious of those who have either taken the advantage or you, or have the propensity to take the advantage of you based on past experience.
So, as oddly as it might seem to white people, 90% of those of us over the age of seventy, do have the ability to be sceptical of those who have, or can inflict harm to you, your family and control to some degree how far you can go in America. Make no mistake about it, we are consumers and we have to go to people who do not look like us for everything we consume, and they call the shots.
I understand when you retort, and come back and name a few Blacks that have made it, so why should we still have concerns about whether we make it. Sure you can name a few sport figures and musicians/rappers, if that's what you want to call it, that have made it, but that's my point exactly, you can name those of us in the business arena, but you could never name those in the business arena that are white who have made it - far too many for either of us to count.
I'm ok, you're ok, but so are those you do not understand.
Pastor 71
@Leslie D. Callahan:
"While I think he went way too far with "God Damn America", the point that Rev. Wright made was that America cannot have it both ways."
I agree mainly with what you've said here.
@leslie:
"The other thing is that it is impossible to understand Wright's style apart from a familiarity with the biblical prophetic tradition and the tradition of the jeremiad in American preaching."
leslie, right on, and well stated.
I think, however, that Rev. Wright's remarks have been cleverly edited so as not to give them balance, and clarity within a larger context, all for the purpose of presenting him as bigoted and hateful, and to paint Obama with the same airbrush.
Obviously, I can't speak for Rev. Wright, but let me see if I can sum up the pastor's position.
Note, this is merely my take on what he has said.
In his sermons, Rev. Wright talked about Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and alluded to the wars we have conducted around the world, Viet Nam, and the Middle East.
He suggested that those who we bombed and killed are as much God's people as we are here in America.
Coupled with a violent past, and new atrocities against God's people, that our nation was being punished by God.
And from his position, as a Christian, and pastor, he has a moral duty to speak out about these things.
He wants to see America turned around, the sooner the better. The quickest way to do that is for this country to experience some of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Just as God had damned that reprobate culture, he feels that God will have to do the same here--as he puts it--"God damn America."
If God doesn't damn America, it will continue down this road where it will wreak havoc on the rest of the world, and bring this nation into a greater sin against God and humanity.
Now, you may disagree with my interpretation of his position, but I believe that it has some merit.
Whether you believe in the pastor's remedy for America or not, that is again your prerogative, but men of God have, biblically, taken the leaders of Israel to task, and have predicted doom and destruction, if they continued on a path that was offensive to God.
@pastor71:
"I am a 71 year old Black Pastor, and I am not ashamed to admit, that Pastor Wright's sermon is preached in many, if not most, Black Baptist churches any given Sunday morning."
pastor, you're spot on. And Rev. Wright preached his sermon well aware that there were some whites in his audience.
Rev. Wright's message is not one of hate, but one that puts a mirror up to this country for blacks as well as whites to see themselves and their actions more clearly.
I feel that his motive is not one of hatred, bigotry, divisiveness or
racism. It's a message of love.
Rev. Wright is sounding an alarm.
Unfortunately, there are many whites who don't want to hear it, and will twist his words, and his intentions, to cast him as a mad man, and by extension and association, Obama as well.
From what you hear from the pundits on the right and the left,
you'd think Rev. Wright had called for the violent overthrow of this nation!
I am in total agreement. Even down to where he says "Goddamn America." And to say that doesn't suggest that you hate America. That is an exclamation out of justified frustration with being born a 2nd class citizen in a country that's laid out rules for all to follow but then applies conditions to the rules followed by the undesirables.
White people have to understand that people of color go through unique experiences. There are far too many sophisticated ways to put the brakes on someone's potential.
I agree with Pastor Wright. Because he is preaching from life experience. Come on people he is a black man who grew up during a very hateful time in this America.
You can't go to a Traditional Black Church and not here this message on a Sunday morning. White America have a different experience than we do. You want here A White pastor talking about this Because most likely he's talking about abortions and homosexuality.
If white America would preach that racism is a sin we would not have so much in the world. Pastor Wright been preaching for over 30 years were have white America been? We don't wont to face the truth.
1. I don't go to church to hear my preacher tell me the truth. I go, listen to the sermon and then start thinking about the subject myself. The sermon is the catalysator for my own process of forming an opinion.
2. I'm a white girl from The Netherlands and even I know that Wright was right about Hillary not knowing what it's like to be black in the US. The American people are still very much a racist people. Just reading comments to this story on blogs and news-sites will teach you that. I read comment s about Obama acting like a 'Po'blackie', Obama being a 'dumb black ape' and the lot. And these comments weren't a small minority of the total. As a student of history I've always been interested in Afro-American history and studied it quite a bit. I've written articles on Brown v. Board of Education and the NAACP. In doing that I came across so many examples of racial injustice that have persisted until this very day. I no longer have false ideas of the US as a melting pot. It will take many, many, many years...
I also believe that a huge part of the white population of the western world doesn't appriciate enough what it means to have been opressed for centuries. In the US it seems as if people think that the civil rights movement did away with the opression and that that would be it. That all the scars would just magically dissapear because of the movements from the sixties. But it doesn't work like that. History grounds us, it shapes our identity, in a way it forms our sense of ourselves, the way we view ourselves. When a group of people has a history of opression like African-Americans it scars you. You see the same mechanism at work in Israel. When as a group you come from collective opression and persecution it hits you deep in your feeling of security as an individual. I don't think the so-called 'white guilt' is the way to go, but I would advocate obtaining deeper knowledge. Don't just do away with the comments of Wright as devisive, but think hard about them and wonder if there's truth to them.
If this were about a Republican, we would call that Republican racist and not even try to engineer an excuse as the column and these comments seem to do.
@wilma:
"History grounds us, it shapes our identity, in a way it forms our sense of ourselves, the way we view ourselves. When a group of people has a history of oppression like African-Americans it scars you. You see the same mechanism at work in Israel...."
You have a grasp of this subject that is rare for one that is white.
We're told that racism is dead in America, although we don't have to look too far to find it.
And that if you dare to mention racism, you're playing the race card and behaving as the perpetual victim.
Thanks for your comments. It shows empathy, and an understanding of how oppression scars more than the body, but also the psyche of a people.
Obama is a G no one is stoppin him
- www.anythingblack.wordpress.com
@ before the mayflower
I try, but one thing I found out in the past couple of days is that we lack the ability to have this discussion about race. By that I mean that we seem to lack the tools to engage in a open and honest discussion about race. One thing I noticed is how white people just can't get past the idea that black people 'like to act as victims'. For rational discussion about the subject of race I had to turn to the black community where this discussion has been going on for years and years and where the 'tools' for this discussion have developed over time. The 'white' discussion is still working with 'tools' from the Iron Age in comparison.
This topic is widely discussed on Dutch blogs and it just keeps striking me how we just can't get past our own assumptions, how people keep thinking their qualified for this discussion by saying things like 'I'm no racist, I have black friends, but blacks can't expect to get everything handed to them on a silver platter because of something that happened 200 years ago'. Maybe that disqualifies me for this discussion too, I have no black friends, hell, I don't even know any black people because I live in a very, very white part of The Netherlands (it's disturbing how white this part of the world is really). I'm engaging in this discussion because my rationality requires me to do so. My rationality tells me that it's only been about 40-50 years since the voting act, the housing act and desegregation of education and that things just can't be right overnight. Legislation is good, but it's not a magic trick that makes everything alright with the signing of a piece of legislation. The psychological and emotional aftermath takes a much longer period of time, it has to. Plus, there is the other side of the white reaction to desegregation. There's an incredibly interesting study by Michael Klarman called 'How Brown Changed Race Relations: The Backlash Thesis' (The Journal of American History 1994) about the way Brown v. Board of education actually mobilised white resistance to desegregation. That makes the period of 40-50 years since legislation more a period of 20-30 years. You can't rationally defend the idea that in such a short period of time all should be well by now.
We should have started this discussion then, because right now we're lagging behind the facts.
@ wilmagerisma
Well said.
In a society that should strive for color-blindness, why is it disturbing for all the people to be white? That statement assumes a set of core principles that seem completely at odds with the effort to discuss race sensibly - it begins with an imposition that some % of color diversity is "good", and that deviations from this undefined magic % are bad... so bad that as you move far away from this magic %, it becomes disturbing.
How does that concept contribute to a healthy discussion of race? It seems to me that a foundation principle linking "goodness" to an arbitrary level of "diversity" in skin color drastically reduces the ability to speak clearly about racial issues.
I'd also like to point out that here in the South, we've been having this discussion for practically a hundred years, in some for or fashion... I daresay southern US people are more familiar with and comfortable discussing race than many in the Northeast, and in fact the most virulent racism I've ever seen was in Oakland, CA, in 1998.
wilmagerlsma said...
"This topic is widely discussed on Dutch blogs and it just keeps striking me how we just can't get past our own assumptions...."
Race is one of those topics that won't go away just by ignoring it.
There's something in the human heart that makes us distrust anyone that may be defined as the other.
And I'm pretty sure that CroMagnon was no exception when stumbling across other species of man that bore a different appearance.
This possible genetic hard-wiring needs to be dispensed with, and sloughed off, if we're to survive in this new millennium.
Talking about it, using this new tool we call the Internet, may be just the beginning, but it's an important beginning.
And as long as people of goodwill can talk respectfully to the other, that along augurs eventual success.
Stay engaged. We've come along way, but there's still miles to go before we sleep.
Post a Comment